Talk:Centrist populism/GA1: Difference between revisions

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Vacant0 (talk · contribs) 17:47, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: A.Cython (talk · contribs) 00:19, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article, I will need approximately a week to go through the contents. A.Cython (talk) 00:19, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is an exciting concept and the article has great potential as part of a series of articles that capture the modern day populism currently sweeping the globe. However, I do not believe the article is ready to meet the Good Article criteria without substantial rewriting and careful evaluation of the sources. Additionally, I find the presentation to be rather convoluted adding confusion to the reader. Given the amount of work needed to address these issues, I am inclined to reject it. It would be far better for the article to be resubmitted once these concerns have been thoroughly addressed. Nevertheless, I will give to the author the chance to address my, but not all, concerns below.

1. The aim of this article is to describe “Centrist populism”, however, in its presentation I feel it missed the mark. Much of the text is convoluted between trying to explain the main concept by numerous examples that sometimes these examples are contradictory. There are also several troubled statements.
   • While I was reading the article, the sense that I was getting was that this is a list of facts (particularly focused on Central Europe) rather than a systematic categorization as a political concept. For example, one of the troubled issues in the definition was: are centrist populists (mild) nationalists or not? All I got is a maybe and two experts saying that it is not. This is not a good way define the concept. I would suggest to provide the absolute minimum as a definition without specific examples (i.e., countries and experts) and then see how this definition applies to different regions.
   • According to the political scientists Daniel Smilov and Ruzha Smilova, centrist, left-wing, and right-wing populism both originate from “democratic illiberalism”. This needs some rewrite as it has several issues.
     • Start with the definition of centrist populism, not the origins of (modern) populism. A reader might not know what centrist populism is, but might not know what democratic illiberalism is either. So you just confused the reader even more. Keep it simple.
     • not clear what “both” means given that you provided three things centrist, left-wing, and right-wing populism
     • Why do you have to mention Daniel Smilov and Ruzha Smilova? Do you imply that other political scientists have a different definition?
   • It might help the definition or discussion to describe centrist populism first, and then compare it with right-wing and left-wing populism.
2. What is populism?
   • The section title “Background” is misleading, instead it attempts to describe “populism” so a more appropriate title is needed.
   • Populism is often defined as an idea within the framework of a liberal democracy that defines two core groups—”the people” and “the elite” This needs a rewrite. The term populism originates from ancient Rome, and at the time there was no liberal democracy. So I have trouble understanding how populism needs liberal democracy to be defined. This gets confusing when you mention populist dictatorship, because it appears to imply that “dictatorship” is something that is understood in the framework of “liberal democracy”.
   • On the same note, you say populism defines the “people” and the “elite/establishment”. Ok so far and what then? How does populism function? I read two paragraphs and I still do not know what populism really is other than it takes different forms and shapes. Is this a way for the “people” take control of the government, or is it how “elites” control the frustration of the “people”? Or maybe it is something else, either way it is not described well enough in the version of the article that I read.
3. Is Political Spring a centrist political party?

   The Enyedi & Mölder 2019 reference only provides Two minor actors, the Greek Political Spring (POLA) and the Portuguese National Solidarity Party (PSN), can be also considered to be borderline cases of centrist populism, as they are also placed into this cluster for part of their career in both data sets. I could not find an explanation/argument, but this is incompatible with established literature.

   Antonis Samaras, the founder of Political Spring, is conservative on the right side of the spectrum and this is the polite way of putting it. In early 1990s, In the Macedonia naming dispute disagreed with the conservative Prime Minister Konstantinos Mitsotakis for being too moderate (i.e., Samaras adopted a nationalist position), resulting his break from the conservative New Democracy to form Political Spring and resulted in the fall of the conservative government in 1993. Lately, he repeated again the same tactic by blaming the Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis (son of Mitsotakis) for passing legislation on Same-sex marriage in Greece in 2024. These actions do not reflect centrist positions. But let’s say I do not well enough the politics of Greece, here I include secondary sources that clearly classify Political Spring in the the right side of the conservative spectrum.

   Note that by the definition provided: Centrist populists attack the political mainstream while not being subscribed to extremist politics.[14] They do not rely on any political ideologies,[15] instead claiming that they are non-ideological and anti-political,[16] while often emphasising increasing living standards. Political Spring is disqualified since it was by large a nationalist party, i.e., followed a particular ideology.

4. How about other political parties?

   I do not know the politics of the other countries, it just happened for me to aware of the Greek politics. But if the reference provided made such an apparent blunder then what about all the other parties? Can we trust this as a reliable source? I have very little trust on any statement supported by the particular reference. This was a shock for me given that “Routledge” is considered a reliable publisher. The only way I can see this fixed is by finding another WP:RS to support each of the particular statements. Ideally, replacing the reference with one that does not such issues.

5. From numerous examples to a cohesive narrative

   What this article is missing is a coherent theme/definition/narrative. Right now the writing is not engaging as the reader is bombarded by numerous examples that sometimes contradict or they slight variation of the same.

   I had to read the article again, as I failed to find any commentary about the advantages and disadvantages of centrist position. For example, is the adoption of such positions politically fragile? Under what conditions centrist populism becomes favorable, etc.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   It needs to be cohesively written stripped as much as possible from specific examples, especially in the definition sections (populism & centrist populism).

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   I have reservations on the use of the some references as mentioned above. Additional WP:RS are needed to overcome this issue.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The portraits of two politicians on a general political science topic seems insufficient to cover the topic.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I place it on hold for now, until I get a response from the editor (up to a week) on how he/she would like to proceed. A.Cython (talk) 02:17, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@A.Cython: Thanks for the review. I am not really interested in addressing your comments atm due to holidays, but I’ll look to do that somewhere during the next year. Therefore, feel free to quickfail the article. I’ll nominate it again once I address the issues. Cheers, Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave it open for a week in case you find time; I am happy to leave it open much further if changes are being made. This is a rather challenging topic without a doubt. You have done a great job to bring it toward GA status, but I think it needs a little more to get there. Happy editing. A.Cython (talk) 14:04, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]